G.R. Nos.

82346-47 April 17, 1989

VICTORlANO ADA petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE MARCIANO T. VIROLA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Br. 39 of the
Regional Trial Court of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro and CALAPAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

FERNAN, C.J.:

Facts:

Petitioner was initially charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 2056 and 2057 of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental
Mindoro, Branch XXXIX in Calapan, for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 consisting in the issuance of
three (3) checks which subsequently bounced. After the prosecution had rested its case and before the
presentation of evidence by the defense, petitioner was again charged before the same Regional Trial Court for
Estafa as penalized under par. 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Cases Nos. C-2434 and
C-2435 based on the same act of issuing three (3) bouncing checks. Petitioner vehemently objected thereto, but
his objections notwithstanding, respondent Judge proceeded with petitioner's arraignment and after the latter's
plea of not guilty, allowed the prosecution to present its evidence in support of said new cases which consisted
mainly in the adoption of the same evidence presented in the first two (2) cases.

After the prosecution had rested its case, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the latter cases, invoking as ground
therefor the constitutional guarantee against being placed twice in jeopardy to punishment for the same act as
provided under Section 21, Article III of the New Constitution. In an Order dated September 2, 1987, the lower
court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. C-2434 and C-2435 on the ground that under
the first sentence of Section 21 of Article III of the New Constitution one may be put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same act, provided that he is charged with different offenses, or the offense charged in one case is not
included in, or does not include the crime charged in the other case. 1 Petitioner's subsequent motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid order was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue: WON Petitioner prosecution, first under Section I of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and again, under Article
315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, based on the same act of issuing three (3) bouncing checks, violates
his constitutional right against double jeopardy?

Held:

It is a settled rule that to raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first
jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or a frustration
thereof. 2

These requisites do not exist in the case at bar.

he prohibition is against a second jeopardy for the same offense. The plea of double jeopardy applies where the
offenses in the two informations are the same in law and in fact. It is not necessarily decisive that the two
offenses may have material facts in common, or that they are similar, where they are not in fact the same. The
test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in
jeopardy for the same offense. 3 A single act may offend against two (or more) entirely distinct and unrelated
provisions of law, and if one provision of law requires proof of an additional fact or element while the other
does not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does not bar prosecution under
the other. 4 In other words, where two different laws (or articles of the same Code) define two crimes, prior
jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the
same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other. 5

A scrutiny of the two laws involved shows that the two offenses punished therein are different and distinct from
each other. In the crime of Estafa by postdating or issuing bad check/s under the Revised Penal Code, deceit and
damage are two essential elements of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant
convictions 6 with the further requisite that deceit in causing the defraudation must be prior to or simultaneous
with the commission of the fraud. For violation of the Bouncing Checks Law under B.P. 22, on the other hand,
these elements are not necessary, the essential element being knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of
the check of the insufficiency of his funds. The gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment and not the non-payment of an
obligation. 7

Distinction between the two offenses is further found in their nature. Whereas the offense under article 315, par.
2(d) of the Revised Penal Code is a malum in se requiring proof of criminal intent on the part of the offender as
an essential ingredient focusing mainly on the damage caused to the property rights of the victim, the crime
under B.P. 22 makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum wherein criminal intent need
not be proved because it is presumed and considered a violation thereof as one committed against public
interest.